alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021502EN.01000302.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission

(Case C-583/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 3 of Annex IX - Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings - Article 4(4) - Administrative enquiry - Hearing of the official concerned - Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 502/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
# C_2020329EN.01001101.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/11

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 25 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Valencia — Spain) — GT v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-560/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
# C_2019423EN.01004101.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)

(Case T-497/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark IAK - Earlier national word mark IAK - Institut für angewandte Kreativität - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark)

(2019/C 423/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IAK GmbH — Forum International (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by: G. Wilke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ulrich Schwalb (Cologne, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2018 (Case R 1511/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schwalb and IAK — Forum International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IAK GmbH — Forum International to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IAK GmbH — Forum International to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1360-E1361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    A TRIBUTE TO BRITTANY WIEBBECKE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
Brittany Wiebbecke of Nashua, Iowa for being awarded the Girl Scout 
Gold Award.
   The Gold Award is the highest award that a high school-aged Girl 
Scout can earn. This is an extremely prestigious honor, as less than 6 
percent of all Girl Scouts will attain the Gold Award's rigorous 
requirements.
   To earn a Gold Award, a Girl Scout must complete a minimum of 80 
hours towards a community project that is both memorable and lasting. 
For her project, Brittany assisted a local animal rescue center by 
providing supplies and learning materials for new pet owners. The work 
ethic Brittany has shown to earn her Gold Award speaks volumes about 
her commitment to serving a cause greater than herself and assisting 
her community.
   Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young woman and her supportive 
family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication

[[Page E1361]]

and perseverance. I am honored to represent Brittany and her family in 
the United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the 
House will join me in congratulating her on obtaining the Gold Award, 
and will wish her continued success in her future education and career.

                          ____________________
```
#### Serafin Castillo, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 36132.)

Court of Claims,

October 6, 1959.

*S. Michael Weisberg*and *Roy E. Josephson*for claimant.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Melvyn N. Thaler*of counsel), for defendant.

Alexander J. Del Gtorno, J.

This motion for examination before trial is denied without reference to its merits and without prejudice to a renewal thereof within the proper district. Rule 8 of the Rules of the Court of Claims requires that this motion be brought in the Syracuse District wherein the claim is filed.

Submit order.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Alpha Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Lepin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: April 2, 2018   /s/ John Lepin John Lepin Principal Financial Officer Principal Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas T. Dawley, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Nothing in the record pertaining to the appeal from the judgment of conviction supports defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Attempted Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
# C_2020137EN.01002202.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Corporis sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S

(Case C-25/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Representation of a non-life insurance undertaking - Representative permanently resident in national territory - Service of documents - Receipt of the document initiating proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Non-applicability)

(2020/C 137/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporis sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 152(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), read in conjunction with Article 151 of that directive and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the appointment by a non-life insurance undertaking of a representative in the host Member State also includes the authorisation for that representative to receive a document initiating court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# C_2007140EN.01003501.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/35

---

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Ireland v Commission

(Case T-129/07)

(2007/C 140/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, E. Alkin, Agents, and P. McGarry, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, insofar as it concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, insofar as it concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 by which the Commission found that the exemptions from excise duty granted by France, Ireland and Italy in respect of heavy fuel oils used in the production of alumina as from 1 January 2004 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and that a certain part of this aid was incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes four pleas in law.

Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong when it concluded that Ireland had not demonstrated that the exemptions fall within the nature and logic of the domestic taxation system.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a proper competition analysis in support of its conclusion that the Irish measure can be assumed to affect intra-community trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.

Thirdly, the applicant alleges that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty in circumstances where the Council had already authorised the specific derogation until the end of 2006.

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in law in concluding that the State aid concerned constitutes new aid, as opposed to existing aid.

---
# C_2009205EN.01000602.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Har Vaessen Douane Service BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-7/08) (1)

1

(Relief from import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Article 27 - Goods of a negligible individual value dispatched as a grouped consignment - Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community)

2009/C 205/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Har Vaessen Douane Service BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 (OJ 1991 L 105, p. 1) — Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community, each of negligible value but dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the maximum value prescribed by law

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991, does not preclude grouped consignments of goods, with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold laid down in Article 27, but which are individually of negligible value, from being admitted free of import duties, provided that each parcel of the grouped consignment is addressed individually to a consignee within the European Community. In that respect, the fact that the contractual partner of those consignees is itself established in the European Community is not relevant where the goods are dispatched directly from a third country to those consignees.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT OT
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SBS Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the Report), I,
James E. Dixon, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James E. Dixon, Jr.                                      
|                                                             
|James E. Dixon, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2002
# C_2019103EN.01004601.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/46

---

Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB

(Case T-741/18)

(2019/C 103/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, E. Poulton, L. Carlisle, and R. Molesworth, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.






  — | The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.

—

The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.






  — | The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.

—

The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing.

---
# C_2018392EN.01003801.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/38

---

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

(Case T-534/18)

(2018/C 392/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

| — | Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,643,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  676,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      21,145,685
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,730,764)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,734,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          514,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,219,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,734,029
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,393,813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,239,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,154,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,154,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,154,193
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>